RE: Tracing FGAC/VPD differences between 9i and 10g

Not having any prior experience with VPD, I am kinda jumping in the water on this one. We have made progress with various tracing options and now have other issues. Specifically, we would like to reduce the library cache latch contention due to heavy parsing caused by a policy type of "context_sensitive". "Shared_context_sensitive" seems to help, but "static" would be even better, if we can figure out how to appropriately deploy it.

Currently, our predicate function revolves around campus code (as we are a multi-campus educational facility), hence the VPD tables each have a vpdi column for use with the campus code. The problem is that the table name is part of the column name (a "naming standard" from the 3rd party vendor), hence if we use a static policy, subsequent queries against VPD tables fail because, obviously, the function is cached with the first table name that is executed.

My question for the list: what is the best compromise we can achieve? Granted, there are other VPD issues as the situation is a bit complex - I am starting simple since that is all I understand at the moment. =) I have been trying to read up on the documentation, but it tends to be distracting when people keep asking questions as if I know the answer. *grin*

> _____________________________________________
> From: Schultz, Charles
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:31 PM
> To: Oracle-L
> Subject: Tracing FGAC/VPD differences between 9i and 10g
>
> Does the sql trace facility (ie, event 10046) in 10g do better
> recursive tracing than 9i? From some tests we are running, we are
> seeing sql statements under 10g that do not show up under 9i (same
> application). I tried to scour the Concepts guide, but did not find
> anything relevant there (perhaps I missed it?).
>
> TIA,
>
> charles schultz
> oracle dba
> aits - adsd
> university of illinois
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l